Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Probably Guns N Roses.

Since when was it about how technical they are with a guitar? If you can get a good sound then thats all that matters. But anyway, I prefer Nirvana.

Alice in Chains is far superior and more talented than both.

At 9/13/10 03:25 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: I like Nirvana... a lot. I like GnR too. But liking a band doesn't mean that I have to automatically give them false credit where they don't deserve it. Nirvana, although a good band, are not better then Guns N Roses.

Kurt Cobain was a sloppy musician who could barely play a few basic power chords. His song structure was generic, his chord progressions where basic, his vocal talents where limited, his lyrics where mostly nonscence, and he has the musical skills of a first year student. There's no denying that.

Look at the solo for Smells like Teen spirit and compare it to the ending solo to Paradise City. Who's the better musician? Name one song that Nirvana have the can even come close to comparing to the talent displayed in November Rain. It can't be done... because Nirvana, just weren't that good.

Soloing or guitar virtuosity =/= talent as a musician. I'll admit that the songs are simple, but the greatest asset any musician has isn't the ability to pick sweep, or the ability to rock your shit with a 4 minute solo, but the ability to write a tuneful song that's enjoyable to listen to, time and time again.

A band that only released 3 real CDS... Nirvana released 3 real CDS too. What is your point? Bleach, Nevermind, and In Utero

GnR has Appitite, Lies, and Use your Illusions. Which are the better set of CDs? Bleach was a failure that nobody cared about... it's only hit is "about a girl" and even it wasn't that good until it was re-recorded on the unplugged album. The musical world could exist just fine without songs like Floyd the Barber... but could the same be said about Welcome to the Jungle? Sweet Child O Mine? I think not.

...It wasn't rerecorded on the unplugged album, that was a live version. Jackass.

Regardless, GNR had a major label debut; Bleach was released on Sub-Pop, which was a small time indie label. Why you'd compare their sales as if you knew shit about the music industry is beyond me.

Fact of the matter is, Bleach is a decent album by any standard, just not commercial. If you're going to use record sales as a measurement of how good an album is, well all I have to say is that you must be a pretty big Mariah Carey fan then, considering her albums have sold just as well (probably better) than GNR or Nirvana :3

And even with all of this extra help and added CDs to help boost their sales and keep their name in the public eye, Nirvana still couldn't match the amount of albums, or hits, generated by Guns N Roses. Go figure.

Well that's just plain ignorant.

Guns N Roses where to music, what EAs Madden is to video games. That's all I'm saying. Nirvana where a big band, but they where never that big. Nirvana where good, but they where never that good.

; It was more like a cultural movement then a record.

You mean, 'cultural fad'. There's a reason Grunge is dead and metal is still alive and kicking...

...Meanwhile, hard rock is pretty much dead, with the exception of imitators who no one respects, like Wolfmother. Metal? No, that term doesn't apply to them anymore. Regardless of how much you whine about it being grandfathered in, hard rock is an infinitely better term for it, and despite how much you argue, hard rock is pretty much a dead genre; when's the last time any hard rock band ever had a hit album? Aside from reissues or last grasps from dying bands (Black Ice? Chinese Democracy, anyone?) there isn't alot of new material there buddy.

Are you, because Nirvana have only sold 25-million albums in the us, and GnR have sold 45-million. World wide, GnR have sold over 100-million albums, and Nirvana... only 50-million.

Yeah and? ABBA has sold more albums than GNR. Celine Dion and Barbra Streisand, too. Does that make them better musicians, or mean they have more impact on the music industry?

The fuck are you, retarded?

Because people only cared about one song. GnR fans didn't care about one song, they cared about them all.

Says all the cover bands who only play 'Welcome to the Jungle' and 'Sweet Child o' Mine' you should probably recant now, considering Guns and Roses is pretty much a glorified singles band.

Yup, and yet... they couldn't stay away. No matter what Axel did, or said... the band was still a huge success and his songs are still played daily all across the nation. That's just how good he is.

*Axl. You'd think for how big of a 'fan' you are you'd be able to spell his name right. Not sure if you realize, but Nirvana's singles get played everyday... All over the world. It's not really just Smells like Teen Spirit, either. Most of their singles are in heavy rotation on all sorts of radio stations. Just because it isn't on the obviously shitty dadrock station that plays GNR and Stairway to Heaven all day that you listen to doesn't mean it isn't played.

Well, I was never part of this debate, but you are right. They were considered metal.

I know... some people like to say they're hard rock. Piss on that... anybody who claims GnR aren't metal are just showing how little they know about music. It's one of my pet-peevs. GnR are, and always will be, a metal band.

They're hard rock. Metal as a genre has all sorts of subgenres, bands and tropes all to itself, and regardless, Hard rock is a much more fitting word for their brand of terrible music.

So yeah stop being an ignorant cockhole, I don't even like either of those bands but every post you make makes me like Nirvana more and more, and GNR less and less.

At 9/13/10 06:05 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

At 9/13/10 05:23 PM, FlyByNight wrote: Please shut the fuck up about power chords. Power chords are only 2 notes, not something super hard or insane. I don't see why you hold them in such high regards.

I don't hold them in high regards. That's why Kurt sucks... he was a shitty musician who could barely play power chords. When you can barely play the easiest fucking thing to do on the guitar, you're a shit musician.

Are you fucking retarded? What about that didn't you understand?

All musicans use power chords but when you rely on them because you can't do shit else, you suck. When you have to strum open notes between power chords because you can't change position fast enough, your a shit musician. Kurt was a shit musician who could barely play power chords and had to fill in chord changes with open notes.

Guns N Roses are the better band. Seriously, anyone who says other wise doesn't know shit about music. You don't have to like GnR, but to imply that Nirvana where the better band is just stupid... everybody in GnR had more talent in the tip of their dicks then any member of Nirvana had in their entire body.

So just because Kurt could play more than 2 notes at once and barely used power chords he sucks? I personally think Nirvana is better because they put feeling into their music. Its not all technical, just look at B.B. King. Not the best guitarist, but he defiantly put a lot of feeling and soul into what he played.

I choose A

If you like Guns and Roses, you are a fucking faggot. Their music is fucking terrible. Nirvana is so much better, I don't know how you could even compare the two.

Nirvana, bitches

Sure, Kurt wasn't a great guitarist, but he wrote awesome songs and as a great guy overall. Nirvana was, and still is an inspiration to many youths and adults.

Lololol Rock music.

nirvana sucking fucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, im glad the singer killed himself, thanks dick for ruining rock and then killing yourself, I HATE THEM

At 9/13/10 08:12 PM, loganthehedgehog wrote: I am 13

damn... that's a shocker

I choose G'n'r cause I dont like death being screamed every time i hear a note

At 9/13/10 08:03 PM, Gaycied wrote: If you dont like Guns and Roses, you are a fucking faggot. Their music is fucking AWESOME. Nirvana is so much worse, I don't know how you could even compare the two.I mean Guns and Roses rules!

Fixed

ITT: People argue and try to prove the opinions are wrong.

GnR is eh. Nirvana is better I would say.

What it comes down to is this.

I like Nirvama better. So do alot of other people here. Some of you like Guns'n'Roses better.

Bringing up how both bands played their instruments is useless. As two different styles of rock, they were meant to sound like each other, so I can't blame Guns for using to many fancy leads, just like you can't blame Kurt for using to many simple chords. I firmly believe that these were planned tactics to get entire different sounds. It is not as if Kurt Cobain could play some awesome guitar, he just played it in a different way. I guess some of you call it to simple... well, I like like simple. Simple gets stuck in your head. You can whistle it later on in the day. If I tried to whistle Slash, my head would explode.

About the only thing left here to do, as long as everyone is already finished casting their vote, is to go on listening to the music we are going to listen to regardless of each others opinions.

I can't make you like something better or worse by explaining it to you. You could tell me how great B.B. King is for hours and I would still get bored listening to his music. I love Nirvana because, (unlike GNR) they had easy songs, and I had massive ammounts of fun playing them when I was first learning guitar. Kurt Cobain greatly influences me to write songs. He has the quality of the kid next door. If he could be a rock star, so could I. Not to say he wasn't cool, but he just wrote some down to Earth songs, how he felt about life, and they moved alot of people. It wasn't obtained by being glam, or wearing huge ammounts of make-up, and you didn't have to rehearse dance moves and nothing about it was contrived. It was real. It didn't have that slick 80's hair band feel to it, you didn't have to act like you were cool, Kurt never acted like a typical rock star. He was intelligent, but he was troubled. It happens. Many people who struggle with their creativity and have alot of charmisa and great ideas collapse under their own genius.

For example, my father was an excellent artist. This is a true story. He personally handed Steven Spielberg a copy of a drawing he did during the fimling of Amistad, and I heard it still hangs up on his wall today. Spielberg wanted my father to come out and work for him. My father was a very charismatic and talented man... he was also unable to stop drinking hard alcohol and cheating on my mom left and right. He was trapped, depressed, and so was Cobain, and this is true, they are both dead now from suicide. So you could say in a way that I kind of know the face of suicide. I know what it looks like, what it walks like, and I know what it talks like. Nobody would ever have expect Kurt Cobain to kill himself. He was this millionaire rockstar living in a mansion in Seattle. But the man was haunted. What can you do?

Some people just want to die. It's pointless to pinpoint why exactly. They just want to die. So they die.

E. Justin Bieber he is the best don't even try to disagree. He even won best new artist so you know hes legit.

This, uh next band told me not to read this, but god dammit I'm going to read it anyway because I wrote it, and it's the truth, I FUCKING LOVE THIS BAND, THEY ARE THE BEST BAND PERIOD. LADIES AND GeNTLEMEN... NIRVANA.

pick of destiny

At 9/13/10 08:03 PM, Gaycied wrote: If you like Guns and Roses, you are a fucking faggot. Their music is fucking terrible. Nirvana is so much better, I don't know how you could even compare the two.

Shut up troll. Who are you to call people faggots over a band they like? That makes you a hypocrite and a dumbass. I pity you.

On topic; I like both, but Nirvana is better imo. No doubt GnR has some great songs, but Nirvana all the way baby.

At 9/13/10 08:03 PM, Gaycied wrote: If you like Guns and Roses, you are a fucking faggot. Their music is fucking terrible. Nirvana is so much better, I don't know how you could even compare the two.

Oh yeah, and don't be such a homophobe. It's wrong. I'm not gay or anything, but to be homophobic is almost dumber than your post.

Nirvana hands down without a doubt, fuck GnR, can't compare the two!

At 9/14/10 12:22 AM, HecticCircleCrap wrote:

At 9/14/10 12:19 AM, EpicFail wrote: Nirvana hands down without a doubt, fuck GnR, can't compare the two!

Of course you can't, GnR doesn't play anything that could be considered grunge and thus this comparison is a fluke and the OP loses.

Exactly and even if Nirvana wins.

At 9/13/10 07:49 PM, Ass-Crumb wrote: the greatest asset any musician has... (is the) ability to write a tuneful song that's enjoyable to listen to, time and time again.

Welcome to the Jungle. Nightrain, Paradise City, Sweet Child O Mine, Patience, Live and let Die, November Rain, Knocking on Heavens Door, Civil War, Don't Cry, You could Be Mine, yesterdays, etc...

Any of those sound familure?

...It wasn't rerecorded on the unplugged album, that was a live version. Jackass.

Yeah, and they recorded the live album and released it. Thus, it was re-recorded. The acoustic version was the version that got noticed, not the original shit version on Bleach.

Regardless, GNR had a major label debut; Bleach was released on Sub-Pop, which was a small time indie label.

Because Bleach was a shit album that no major label wanted to touch. GnR had 'big time shit' writen all over them from day one. That's why they where allowed to jump straight into the major leagues. It's been told that Axel had numerous major lables at his disposal to choose from.

Bleach is a decent album by any standard, just not commercial.

Bleach is a shit album... and I like Nirvana. Easily the worst in their collection.

you must be a pretty big Mariah Carey fan then

Not really, but I'm not going to act like Axl Rose is a better singer then Mariah just because I like GnR better. That would just be stupid. Give credit where credit is due.

...Meanwhile, hard rock is pretty much dead,

Except Guns N Roses are a metal band so who gives a shit about hard-rock? Also, hard rock isn't dead... but grunge most definitly is.

No, that term doesn't apply to them anymore.

So then Black Sabbath aren't metal either. And while we're at it, neither is Judas Priest. Way to show your ignorance.

Yeah and?

So what's your argument for Nirvana being the better band? They have less talent, sold less records, have less hits, and where part of a trendy music fad that died over 10 years ago. That makes them better then GnR how?

or mean they have more impact on the music industry?

Because nobody was ever inspired by anything Slash ever did right? Oh wait...

Says all the cover bands who only play 'Welcome to the Jungle' and 'Sweet Child o' Mine' you should probably recant now, considering Guns and Roses is pretty much a glorified singles band.

Because cover bands that still try to make Smells Like Teen Spirit good are so much better. At least the people in audience actually like hearing Sweet Child O Mine. Grunge cover bands just get laughed off stage.

Nirvana's singles get played everyday... All over the world.

As do GnRs. But unless you can somehow prove Nirvana get more airplay then GnR this is pretty much you just making shit up and trying to pass it off like it's the truth.

At 9/13/10 07:50 PM, FlyByNight wrote: So just because Kurt could play more than 2 notes at once and barely used power chords he sucks? I personally think Nirvana is better because they put feeling into their music. Its not all technical, just look at B.B. King. Not the best guitarist, but he defiantly put a lot of feeling and soul into what he played.

What? Holy shit you're an idiot.

A) Kurt only used Power Chords. Very few of Nirvana's songs actually consist of a riff. And those that do are still highly based around the Power Chord structure. Worse yet, he couldn't even play the power chords cleanly as he often picked open notes between chords because he was unable to move his hands fast enough to play cleanly.

B) BB King is a beast at the guitar, emotinally and technically. What fucking planet do you live on?

C) Go fuck yourself to death.

I didn't mean for this topic to be the place where people debated and hated on the two groups.

Nirvana, end of. (oh wait, I forgot that people don't care what I think.)

I would choose none because their music never actually hit me as original, therefore I am never surprised when I listen to their music pieces.

Now Primus, that's the pool of fucking awesome and original music.

hey im all for nirvana - but they don't even TOUCH guns and roses...

Axl Rose is a big douche
Kurt is drug addict loserrr
But Nirvana changed music forever!
Lol Pixies ripoff

This is what I read in this thread